RFC 5317: Joint Working Team (JWT) Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This RFC archives the report of the IETF - ITU-T Joint Working Team (JWT) on the application of MPLS to transport networks. The JWT recommended of Option 1: The IETF and the ITU-T jointly agree to work together and bring transport requirements into the IETF and extend IETF MPLS forwarding, OAM (Operations, Administration, and Management), survivability, network management and control plane protocols to meet those requirements through the IETF Standards Process. This RFC is available in ASCII (which contains a summary of the slides) and in PDF (which contains the summary and a copy of the slides). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5317
- Published
- February 2009
- Authors
- S. Bryant; L. Andersson
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 10
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5921A Framework for MPLS in Transport NetworksUpdated
July 2010
- RFC 7487Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using RSVP-TECurrent
March 2015
- RFC 5704Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered HarmfulCurrent
November 2009
- RFC 5586MPLS Generic Associated ChannelUpdated
June 2009
- RFC 5654Requirements of an MPLS Transport ProfileCurrent
September 2009
- RFC 5860Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport NetworksCurrent
May 2010
- RFC 5960MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane ArchitectureUpdated
August 2010
- RFC 4652Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols against Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing RequirementsCurrent
October 2006
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?